BELDIH CLUB Vs. JT COMMR OF LABOUR BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for appropriate writ for quashing Annexure-12, letter dated 10th Aug. 1978 issued by respondent No. 3 to the Secretary of the petitioner directing the club to get the registration of the club renewed under the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 (the Act) as the provisions of the Act applied to the club. Annexure-12 was issued in pursuance of the direction as contained in Annexure-13. Prayer was also made for quashing Annexure-13 dated 11th Aug. 1978 communication between respondent No. 4 (the. Chief Inspecting Officer) and respondent No. 2 under the Act.

(2.) The question that is involved in this writ petition is whether a club is an establishment within the meaning of the provisions of the Act. By Annexure-3 respondent No. 4 directed respondent No. 2 to direct the Beldih Club (the petitioner herein) and the United Club, Jamshedpur to get their registration under the Act renewed. The grounds on which the prayer for exemption from the Act was refused to the United Club are also the grounds on which the prayer of the petitioner was refused. The communication between respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 2 dated 11th Aug. 1978 (Annexure-3 herein) was also challenged by the United Club in C.W.J.C. No. 619 of 1979 (R). The grounds on which that communication was challenged which was also marked Annexure-3 in that writ petition, have been reiterated in this writ petition. Learned single Judge by judgement deed 10th Oct. 1985 while disposing of that writ petition held that the United Club is an establishment within the meaning of the Act. When I pointed out to Mr. Chatterjee, who had appeared for the United Club in that writ petition also, that this application is covered by the judgement in C.W.J.C. No. 619 of 1979 (R), he submitted that the reasonings given in that judgement are falacious and, therefore, prayed for allow him to make more submissions in this writ petition. From the judgement of the United Club, it appears that in that application submission was made that as the club was run with no motive of making profit, it could not be held that the club was an establishment within the meaning of S.2(6) of the Act. That contention was repelled and it was held by the learned Judge with reference to the definition of business in Halsbury's Laws of England and Dr. Devendar M. Surti v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1969 SC 63 that for the purpose of business or commercial establishment the presence of profit motive cannot be given an undue importance.

(3.) In this writ petition, Mr. Chatterjee drew my attention to S.2(6) of the Act which defines establishment and to S.2(12) which defines residential hotel. He urged that the ward 'Club' appears only in S.2(12) of the Act and the 'Club' in that Sub- Section means a club which is used for reception of guests and travellers desirous of dwelling or sleeping therein, and as in Beldih Club (the petitioner herein) there is no provision for the guests or travellers for dwelling or sleeping, the petitioner was not a club within the meaning of S.2(12) of the Act.